Wang v Liu

In *Wang v Liu*, the applicant, Mr. Wang, sought to recover unpaid wages and entitlements from two companies, L&L Hospitality Pty Ltd and L&L Catering Pty Ltd, pursuant to an order made by the Fair Work Commission. The companies were subsequently wound up, and Mr. Wang then sought to hold Mr. Liu, a director of both companies, personally liable as an accessory for the companies' contravention of the Fair Work Commission's order, which imposed a civil penalty. The matter came before Judge McNab in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Liu could be held liable as an accessory under section 550(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) for the contravention of the Fair Work Commission's order by the companies. This required the Court to consider the nature of the order, the definition of a contravention, and the elements necessary to establish accessory liability, particularly in circumstances where the primary corporate respondents were in liquidation.

Judge McNab determined that section 550(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* requires proof that a person aided, abetted, counselled, or procured the contravention. The Court found that Mr. Liu, as a director, was aware of the Fair Work Commission's order and the companies' obligation to comply with it. However, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Liu actively took steps to ensure the companies contravened the order or that he intended for the companies to breach their obligations. The Court held that mere knowledge of a contravention, without more, is insufficient to establish accessory liability. The fact that the companies were wound up did not alter the fundamental requirements for proving accessory liability.

Consequently, Judge McNab dismissed the application against Mr. Liu, finding that the applicant had failed to discharge the onus of proving that Mr. Liu was an accessory to the companies' contravention of the Fair Work Commission's order.